Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Social Indicators Research
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research 3/2021

21.10.2020 | Original Research

The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics

verfasst von: Nicholas T. Davis, Kirby Goidel, Yikai Zhao

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this paper, we illustrate that composite views about democracy vary significantly within and across national populations. Using World Values Survey data, we use latent class analysis to demonstrate that composite views of democracy display only modest consensus across country contexts. Although the features of procedural democracy are widely viewed as a cornerstone of democracy, their perceived importance and the way that they interact with substantive features varies considerably across and within democratic countries. These findings encourage caution when analyzing cross-national mass opinion about democracy. In particular, latent variable modeling using pooled survey data should pay careful attention to the unique permutations that democracy takes in the minds of citizens.
Vorheriger Artikel Modeling Local BES Indicators by Copula-Based Bayesian Networks
Nächster Artikel Young Generations' Activism in Italy: Comparing Political Engagement and Participation of Native Youths and Youths from a Migrant Background

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
For example, well-known theorists like Habermas (1996) and Dahl (1989) depict democracy by its production of rights; freedoms of expression, association, assembly, movement, and so on giving democracy its functional meaning.
 
2
Recent research has questioned the evidence of democratic backsliding, noting that it is is often cherry-picked and does not capture the ambiguity in the term “democracy” (Wuttke et al. 2020a, b; Zilinksy 2019).
 
3
At the time of writing, the Wave 7 WVS data had not been released publicly. It may provide new, contemporaneous updates to this analysis. Wave 6, in contrast, provides more limited coverage of the “essential characteristics of democracy,” which limits the countries available for our sample. Analysis of Wave 6 data are comparable to the results presented here and are available upon requests from the authors. The European Social Survey, especially Round 6, provided a robust set of questions specifically on the meanings of democracy (Ferrín and Kriesi 2014). The inclusion of countries from various regions and with different cultures and political systems, however, made the World Values Survey a better choice for this analysis.
 
4
In particular, army rule is sometimes asked in a different question format as a measure of support for democracy (Magalhaes 2014; Miller and Davis 2020). However, because it was included in the battery—and because it represents a rejection of the liberal principles that underscore virtually any reasonable definition of democracy—we retain it for analysis here. We also include all the available items in the World Values Survey to address criticisms that a more limited set of items would bias the results. We have run the analysis with a more limited set of items. Those results confirm the pattern of findings presented here.
 
5
With substantial amounts of data, LCA will pull out fine-grain distinctions that may have little substantive utility. While Classes 1 and 4 are similar, one to two-point differences are substantively significant when the modal response is one of support. Seven classes may risk cutting the data too thin, but we feel that these distinctions are nonetheless warranted given the efficiency gains in the Bayesian Information Criterion.
 
Literatur
Almond, G., Powell, G. B., Dalton, R. J., & Strom, K. J. (2004). Comparative politics today: A theoretical framework (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ariely, G. (2015). Democracy-assessment in cross-national surveys: A critical examination of how people evaluate their regime. Social Indicators Research, 121, 621–635.
Ariely, G., & Davidov, E. (2011). Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the world value survey. Social Indicators Research, 104, 271–286.
Baviskar, S., & Malone, M. F. (2004). What democracy means to citizens- and why it matters. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 76, 3–23.
Bratton, M. (2010). The meanings of democracy: Anchoring the “D-Word” in Africa. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 106–113.
Carlin, R. E. (2018). Sorting out support for democracy: A Q-method study. Political Psychology, 39(2), 399–422.
Claasen, C. (2020). In the mood for democracy? Democratic support as thermostatic opinion. American Political Science Review, 114(1), 36–53.
Coppedge, M., Gerrin, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267.
Crow, D. (2010). The party’s over: Citizen conceptions of democracy and political dissatisfaction in Mexico. Comparative Politics, 43(1), 41–61.
Cutler, F., Nuesser, A., & Nyblade, B. (2013). Evaluating the quality of democracy with individual level models of satisfaction: Or, a complete model of satisfaction with democracy. In ECPR, general conference sciences Po. Bordeaux (pp. 4–7).
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy; participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R. J., Sin, T., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156.
De Regt, S. (2013). Arabs want democracy, but what kind? Advances in Applied Sociology, 3(1), 37–46.
Diamond, L. J., & Plattner, M. F. (2008). How people view democracy, A journal of democracy book. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ferrín, M., & Kriesi, H. (2016). How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27, 5–17.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hooghe, M., Marien, S., & Oser, J. (2017). Great expectations: The effect of democratic ideals on political trust in European democracies. Contemporary Politics, 23(2), 214–230.
Jacobsen, J., & Fuchs, L.M. (2020). Can we compare conceptions of democracy in cross-linguistic and cross-national research? Evidence from a random sample of refugees in Germany. Social indicators research (2020).
King, G., Murray, C. J., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 191–207.
Laclau, E. (2001). Democracy and the question of power. Constellations, 8(1), 3–14.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). London: Verso.
Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). Polca: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(1), 1–29.
Magalhães, P. C. (2014). Government effectiveness and support for democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 77–97.
Mattes, R. (2008). Public opinion research in new democracies: Are the processes different? In W. Donsbach, & M. Traugott (Eds.), Sage handbook of public opinion research (pp. 113–116). London: Sage Publications.
Merkley, E., Cutler, F., Quirk, P., & Nyblade, B. (2019). Having their say: Authority, voice, and satisfaction with democracy. Journal of Politics, 81(3), 848–861.
Mounk, Y. (2018). The people versus democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569.
Oberski, D. L. (2016). Mixture models: Latent profile and latent class analysis. In J. Robertson & M. Kaptein (Eds.), Modern statistical methods for HCI (pp. 275–287). Swizterland: Springer International Publishing.
Oser, J., & Hooghe, M. (2018a). Democratic ideals and levels of political participation: The role of political and social conceptualisations of democracy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20, 711–730.
Oser, J., & Hooghe, M. (2018b). Give me your tired, your poor? Support for social citizenship rights in the United States and Europe. Sociological Perspectives, 61, 14–38.
Pennock, J. R. (1966). Political development, political systems, and political goods. World Politics, 18(3), 415–434.
Prothro, J. W., & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy. The Journal of Politics, 22(2), 276–294.
Przeworski, A. (1999). Minimalist conception of democracy: A defense. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s value. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rose, R., Mishler, W., & Haerpfer, C. (1998). Democracy and its alternatives: Understanding post communist societies. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Sabine, G. H. (1937). A history of political theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Shin, D. (2012). Is democracy emerging as a universal value? A contrarian perspective (No. 68). Asia Barometer Survey Working Paper.
Ulbricht, T. (2018). Perceptions and coneceptions of democracy: Applying thick conecepts of democracy to reassess desires for democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(11), 1387–1440.
Welzel, C. (2011). The asian values thesis revisited: Evidence from the world values surveys. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 12, 1–31.
Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. C. (2016). Misconceptions of measurement equivalence: Time for a paradigm shift. Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1068–1094.
Wuttke, A., Schmipf, C., & Schoen, H. (2020c). When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 356–374.
Zilinsky, J. (2019). Democratic deconsolidation revisited: Young Europeans are not dissatisfied with democracy. Research & Politics.
Metadaten
Titel
The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics
verfasst von
Nicholas T. Davis
Kirby Goidel
Yikai Zhao
Publikationsdatum
21.10.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02517-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Social Indicators Research 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Original Research

Performance Appraisal and Job Satisfaction for Workers Without and With Disabilities by Gender

Original Research

Direct and Indirect Effects of Individualism and Institutions on Homicides

Original Research

The Status of Family Resilience: Effects of Sustainable Livelihoods in Rural China

Original Research

What is the Influence of News Media on People’s Perception of Corruption? Parametric and Non-Parametric Approaches

Original Research

Mortality, Health Status and Self-Perception of Health in Slovak Roma Communities

Original Research

Trust and Trustworthiness in a Sub-Saharan African Sample: Contributions of Personality and Religiosity

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise